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 521651
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: But why?
by kristoph on Tue 12th Jun 2012 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE: But why? "
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

This is just another chapter in the Apple's war against general purpose computers. They will slowly kill their old "desktop" product line, and OSX, in favor of iOS and more restricted hardware.


Apple has the most popular laptop on the market - indeed most of Apple's models are in the top 10 best selling laptops. Apple just introduced yet a new laptop which Thom and everyone is raving about. Apple has the best selling all in one desktop computer in the iMac.

And to assuage concerns about the Mac Pro Tim Cook today replied to some random persons email.

All these computers run Mac OS X (a *NIX derivative), Linux, and various version of Windows, NetBSD, and probably some other BSD's if your into that sort of thing.

Let's also add that Apple actively develops Mac OS X for said computers which is updated far more often and at a much lower cost them the only other consumer grade OS - Microsoft Windows. Apple just announced that $20 will get you an upgrade for as many machines as you own.

But hey, why bother with the facts and shit, right? Let's just go with FUD to play to the peanut gallery.

PS. The MacPro update was totally half assed as Thom said but it's more likely to do with the fact that it just does not make enough money for Apple to redesign the thing more often then some conspiracy theory.

Edited 2012-06-12 04:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: But why?
by moondevil on Tue 12th Jun 2012 09:25 in reply to "RE[2]: But why? "
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

So you want facts?

What about the amount of Mac OS X with failed QA, like the cleartext passwords from last month?

In which markets is Apple selling so hot laptops? Here in many European countries I usually visit, I seldom see Mac laptops being used.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: But why?
by MOS6510 on Tue 12th Jun 2012 12:39 in reply to "RE[3]: But why? "
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

If you watch Dutch television you're very likely to spot some Apple logo's, mostly laptops. And this isn't product placement in some series, but ones that are actually used.

I must admit most people I know with a laptop don't have a MacBook, but they do have very crappy Acer ones. Crappy because they keep breaking down. But they were cheap.

Apparently many Dell tech people use MacBooks.

I have 2 MacBooks, but don't use them so much anymore since I have an iPad.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: But why?
by zima on Mon 18th Jun 2012 23:59 in reply to "RE[2]: But why? "
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And you're still falling for small print... it's easy to have best selling laptops (within PR-delineated area of interest) when you count all variants under one or few; what with other manufacturers are different models...

Mac OS X for said computers which is updated far more often and at a much lower cost them the only other consumer grade OS - Microsoft Windows. Apple just announced that $20 will get you an upgrade for as many machines as you own.
But hey, why bother with the facts and shit, right? Let's just go with FUD to play to the peanut gallery.

And how conveniently you steer clear of some nice thing about Windows, like that you need less to update: a major release (or sometimes even two) previous to current one, and all is still perfectly fine - with that OS just minimally upping in the first place the price of inexpensive machine, whole (lower) costs you just ignore (of course Apple can lure you with that PR of low license price, they get their larger cut somewhere else - you yourself often gloat that Apple has decisively highest profit margins, that they rip you off better, but seemingly you can;t connect the dots when this could end up uncomfortably)

With OSX, devs quickly jump on requiring latest releases for no good reason, despite much smaller changes; Apple abandons them quicker, too.

All for a system with worse support - if you want to do many things, you still have to get that Win license.

Could you be... twisting facts to suit you, to sound nicer?

Edited 2012-06-19 00:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2