4 ms·

Releasing a hilariously overpriced and ugly computer that can cost as much as a new car and might appeal to a niche of a niche, to me, doesn’t really demonstrat

Releasing a hilariously overpriced and ugly computer that can cost as much as a new car and might appeal to a niche of a niche, to me, doesn’t really demonstrate any change in direction. (I love how people keep saying “the most powerful Mac ever”. Ok, but the laptop I bought 7 months ago for 2k has about the same amount of power as the base 6k Mac and it’s not housed in a giant garish cheese grater) I say this as a person that bought exclusively macs from 2009 - 2015 but they don’t have a single computer I even remotely want at the moment.

scarface74 7y ago
It’s not for you. The market that it is for are chomping at the bit to buy one. But as far as it’s “garish appearance”, that’s exactly what Pro’s were asking for something that didn’t put form over function.
- overgard 7y ago
  Well you’re right, it isn’t for me. Which is exactly my point. I am their target market (user of creative software that’s willing to pay a bit of a premium), who has been willing to buy their computers in the past, and none of what they sell holds any appeal. It’s either ridiculously priced (Mac Pro), shoddy (MacBook) or not very modifiable (iMac) “The market” that it’s for (“creatives”) is saying things like “why can’t I get an Nvidia card?” And “I can’t afford a twelve thousand dollar computer” (what this thing costs if you pair it with the monitor) I’ve worked in games and CAD so I’m no stranger to needing powerful computers, but those numbers are absurd and most of that software doesn’t need to run on Mac. I don’t care much about the OS I’m on and I’m perfectly fine with windows or Linux if I save 8 thousand dollars and can use a broader range of hardware. As far as I can tell the only people that NEED macOS are iOS developers. If I’m working on films or games or design almost all of that software runs on windows.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    You can get an equivalent Windows computer for $8000 less than a Mac Pro + Apple display? You know no one is forcing you to buy the Apple display right?
    - overgard 7y ago
      Yes, I can easily get a computer for 4K that rivals a Mac Pro. I think like 4 years ago my employer let me spec out the computer I bought for 4K and I built a 20 core Xeon monstrosity with 32gb of ram, 3 monitors, and like a $700 Nvidia card. 4 years ago! If apple was listening to their customers they’d offer a customisable desktop tower in the 2-5k range people are willing to pay. As much as I like the iMacs display I’m using it with a Wacom cintiq so having a built in screen is a waste for me. I just want a computer that can be opened and upgraded, runs macOS, and doesn’t require a loan.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Including the monitor? But $1000 cheaper is a far cry from “$8000 cheaper”. You don’t have to buy the monitor by the way....
        overgard 7y ago
        I have a 4K (resolution) monitor that cost me about $400. It’s less fancy than a 6k (resolution) monitor but I’m also paying about a tenth the price sooo. Yeah. Let’s say 2 nice 4K monitors and a $3200 tower. That can easily compete with a 6000 dollar tower with a 6000 dollar monitor from apple, and I’m spending 4000 dollars instead of 12000. What exactly am I getting for that extra 8000 to make it worthwhile?
        scarface74 7y ago
        If all you need is the 4K monitor than the 6K monitor is not for you and you could use the same 4K monitor with the Mac Pro. Heck you could get the 5K LG monitor for $1200 and save $3800 dollars. Nothing is forcing you to buy the 6K monitor if you don’t need it. Isn’t that the whole purpose of buying the Mac Pro over the iMac Pro that you can mix and match based on your needs?
        overgard 7y ago
        Yes nobody is forcing me to buy it. My point with the 6k monitor is just to show how wacky apples pricing is. For reference I also have a 5k monitor, and next to the 4K the improvement is marginal/almost imperceptible. I also have a $2500 art tablet, which is a 4K touchscreen with highly accurate color reproduction and a very sophisticated drawing pen — ie an actual professional tool. This computer and monitor apple is selling seems like a gimmick for absurdly rich people.
  - analognoise 7y ago
    FPGA developer here. Access to a Linux cluster at work, everyone has 96GB ECC ram, dual Xeon on win 10 as a backup in case of any issues or if they prefer running locally. Our badass computers were a hair over 10k a piece. I have no idea why anyone would pay what Apple is asking. I remember when it was "counterculture" to give people more compute, for less money - do real work, on machines that made financial sense - that was sticking it to "the Man" (IBM, the suits who thought they knew anything). Now Microsoft is the counter culture, increasingly open, value for money. I don't understand this timeline at all.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      What point are you trying to make? You said your computers are a hair over $10K a piece. The base price of the Mac Pro is $6000. Unless you think that Apple is going to charge $4000 to upgrade from 32GB to 96GB.
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        On the iMac pro 32 to 128 costs 2k, there is no 96. Then there is storage, display, gpu and the fact that the referenced machine was purchased months or years in the past vs months in the future. Assuming the user can do basic numeric comparison I'm assuming that his 10k includes substantial extras beyond ram that would also have to be added to the equivalent Mac.
        scarface74 7y ago
        Well seeing that - none of the upgrades have been announced. - he didn’t say anything about specs besides the memory and processor - you can get third party RAM for the iMac Pro. So the question remains - what point was he trying to make? Unless he like the other poster was bundling the cost of the monitor with the Mac Pro as if you have to buy both.
        analognoise 7y ago
        The 6k config comes with dual Xeons? That might not be a bad deal. I thought that was the base configuration, with dual processors available as an upgrade. It says "up to 28 cores".

scarface74 7y ago

It’s not for you. The market that it is for are chomping at the bit to buy one. But as far as it’s “garish appearance”, that’s exactly what Pro’s were asking for something that didn’t put form over function.

overgard 7y ago
Well you’re right, it isn’t for me. Which is exactly my point. I am their target market (user of creative software that’s willing to pay a bit of a premium), who has been willing to buy their computers in the past, and none of what they sell holds any appeal. It’s either ridiculously priced (Mac Pro), shoddy (MacBook) or not very modifiable (iMac) “The market” that it’s for (“creatives”) is saying things like “why can’t I get an Nvidia card?” And “I can’t afford a twelve thousand dollar computer” (what this thing costs if you pair it with the monitor) I’ve worked in games and CAD so I’m no stranger to needing powerful computers, but those numbers are absurd and most of that software doesn’t need to run on Mac. I don’t care much about the OS I’m on and I’m perfectly fine with windows or Linux if I save 8 thousand dollars and can use a broader range of hardware. As far as I can tell the only people that NEED macOS are iOS developers. If I’m working on films or games or design almost all of that software runs on windows.
- scarface74 7y ago
  You can get an equivalent Windows computer for $8000 less than a Mac Pro + Apple display? You know no one is forcing you to buy the Apple display right?
  - overgard 7y ago
    Yes, I can easily get a computer for 4K that rivals a Mac Pro. I think like 4 years ago my employer let me spec out the computer I bought for 4K and I built a 20 core Xeon monstrosity with 32gb of ram, 3 monitors, and like a $700 Nvidia card. 4 years ago! If apple was listening to their customers they’d offer a customisable desktop tower in the 2-5k range people are willing to pay. As much as I like the iMacs display I’m using it with a Wacom cintiq so having a built in screen is a waste for me. I just want a computer that can be opened and upgraded, runs macOS, and doesn’t require a loan.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Including the monitor? But $1000 cheaper is a far cry from “$8000 cheaper”. You don’t have to buy the monitor by the way....
      - overgard 7y ago
        I have a 4K (resolution) monitor that cost me about $400. It’s less fancy than a 6k (resolution) monitor but I’m also paying about a tenth the price sooo. Yeah. Let’s say 2 nice 4K monitors and a $3200 tower. That can easily compete with a 6000 dollar tower with a 6000 dollar monitor from apple, and I’m spending 4000 dollars instead of 12000. What exactly am I getting for that extra 8000 to make it worthwhile?
        scarface74 7y ago
        If all you need is the 4K monitor than the 6K monitor is not for you and you could use the same 4K monitor with the Mac Pro. Heck you could get the 5K LG monitor for $1200 and save $3800 dollars. Nothing is forcing you to buy the 6K monitor if you don’t need it. Isn’t that the whole purpose of buying the Mac Pro over the iMac Pro that you can mix and match based on your needs?
        overgard 7y ago
        Yes nobody is forcing me to buy it. My point with the 6k monitor is just to show how wacky apples pricing is. For reference I also have a 5k monitor, and next to the 4K the improvement is marginal/almost imperceptible. I also have a $2500 art tablet, which is a 4K touchscreen with highly accurate color reproduction and a very sophisticated drawing pen — ie an actual professional tool. This computer and monitor apple is selling seems like a gimmick for absurdly rich people.
- analognoise 7y ago
  FPGA developer here. Access to a Linux cluster at work, everyone has 96GB ECC ram, dual Xeon on win 10 as a backup in case of any issues or if they prefer running locally. Our badass computers were a hair over 10k a piece. I have no idea why anyone would pay what Apple is asking. I remember when it was "counterculture" to give people more compute, for less money - do real work, on machines that made financial sense - that was sticking it to "the Man" (IBM, the suits who thought they knew anything). Now Microsoft is the counter culture, increasingly open, value for money. I don't understand this timeline at all.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    What point are you trying to make? You said your computers are a hair over $10K a piece. The base price of the Mac Pro is $6000. Unless you think that Apple is going to charge $4000 to upgrade from 32GB to 96GB.
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      On the iMac pro 32 to 128 costs 2k, there is no 96. Then there is storage, display, gpu and the fact that the referenced machine was purchased months or years in the past vs months in the future. Assuming the user can do basic numeric comparison I'm assuming that his 10k includes substantial extras beyond ram that would also have to be added to the equivalent Mac.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Well seeing that - none of the upgrades have been announced. - he didn’t say anything about specs besides the memory and processor - you can get third party RAM for the iMac Pro. So the question remains - what point was he trying to make? Unless he like the other poster was bundling the cost of the monitor with the Mac Pro as if you have to buy both.
        analognoise 7y ago
        The 6k config comes with dual Xeons? That might not be a bad deal. I thought that was the base configuration, with dual processors available as an upgrade. It says "up to 28 cores".