Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Jun 2012 22:23 UTC
Apple Marco Arment: "After two years, the Mac Pro was 'updated' today, sort of: now we can choose slightly faster two-year-old CPUs at the top end, and the other two-year-old CPU options are cheaper now. That's about it. No Xeon E5 CPUs, no USB 3, no Thunderbolt. They're even shipping the same two-year-old graphics cards. Same motherboard, slightly different CPU options from 2010. That's it. The message is clear: Apple doesn't give a shit about the Mac Pro." Paint, red, scout, girl.
Thread beginning with comment 521613
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: But why?
by lfeagan on Mon 11th Jun 2012 23:15 UTC in reply to "But why? "
lfeagan
Member since:
2006-04-01

Although the profit margin has increased, it isn't a notable difference. Xeon's don't drop in price by more than 10% over their lifetime for NIB parts.

Apple's high-end users are victims of Apple's success with phones and tablets. Although the absolute revenue from Mac Pro sales is likely increasing the relative contribution towards revenue is dropping like a rock. Apple, like any well-run company, invests resources in areas that benefit them the most. There is, however, great danger in becoming overly dependent on a single market segment. If for nothing other than reasonable diversification Apple should continue to invest in machines geared towards content creators (and not just content consumers).

Sadly, if you read books such as Innovator's Dilemma, you will realize how incredibly difficult it will be to make this happen. There is great inertia that must be overcome.

I was also greatly disappointed by the Mac Pro update and will continue hackintoshing along for my large memory needs working on stitched panos.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: But why?
by Anonymous Penguin on Tue 12th Jun 2012 04:43 in reply to "RE: But why? "
Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

There is, however, great danger in becoming overly dependent on a single market segment. If for nothing other than reasonable diversification Apple should continue to invest in machines geared towards content creators (and not just content consumers)...

I was also greatly disappointed by the Mac Pro update and will continue hackintoshing along for my large memory needs working on stitched panos.


Ironically, the OSx86 scene could save Apple from themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: But why?
by Tuishimi on Tue 12th Jun 2012 18:41 in reply to "RE[2]: But why? "
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Whenever I read your posts I can't help but read them in Spock's voice in my head... it adds weight to everything you say. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: But why?
by bert64 on Tue 12th Jun 2012 07:22 in reply to "RE: But why? "
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

It's largely down to the maturing of the market...

A few years ago, you bought the most powerful system you could afford because a more powerful system made day to day things tolerable, let you do some things that were totally impractical on lower end hardware and provided a machine that would take a bit longer to become totally obsolete.

Now, for 99% of users a lowend piece of hardware is more than adequate to their needs... Only a small number of enthusiasts and specialist users require the high end equipment.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: But why?
by Priest on Tue 12th Jun 2012 10:17 in reply to "RE[2]: But why? "
Priest Member since:
2006-05-12

Right but that also means a cheaper Ivy Bridge desktop processors are probably better suited to most peoples needs than Xeon.

There may have been a time where a couple Xeons on a motherboard was big deal but now with multi core CPU's and hyperthreading paying all that extra money for a Xeon work station seems silly.

Unfortunately for Apple they don't offer anything else in that segment because the iMac mini doesn't have much of a graphics card or dual monitor support out of the box.

Reply Parent Score: 2