3 ms·

I predict it will disappear from the market within 2 years with no replacement leaving people to limp along on an iMac. Not like it hasn't happened before.

by qz2 6y ago

tonyedgecombe 6y ago
I've been wondering about that. I have a suspicion that the sales volumes don't justify the effort Apple needs to put into a device like that. On the other hand it would be nice to see a slightly more grown up MacMini, something with expansion in mind.
- anunes 6y ago
  Wouldn't the surplus of selling relatively few machines that cost a minimum of 5,999 US$ justify continuing its development? Not a burn, they're clearly great, well built computers, but Apple obviously adds a lot of profit to all their machines, Mac Pro included.
- kemayo 6y ago
  I think the Mac Pro exists for reasons independent of directly making a profit. Though Apple would always like to make a profit, of course. It's a combination of a halo car and a triple whopper. A halo car is a statement of intent from a car company. It's showing off "here's all our coolest stuff, and the direction we think things should go", while being impractically expensive and bought by almost nobody. By putting out the fancy new Mac Pro, Apple reassured professionals that it cared about them, and presumably that's making people less likely to nervously shift away from the platform even if all they actually need for their own work is a laptop or Mac Mini. The triple whopper, famously, mostly existed to be a conspicuously more-excessive product that made the double whopper look more reasonable in comparison. If the Mac Pro exists at $6k base, buying a reasonably specced out iMac suddenly looks downright responsible! Both of these things are good for Apple's bottom line.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    Those are interesting points although I'm sure I read that Apple expects each product line to stand on its own two feet.
- easton 6y ago
  The other side is that if the efficiency and performance of these chips scales up to a big workstation, they could use them in their data centers to get much higher performance without a whole lot of extra power, and then sell whatever chips they don't need as Mac Pros.
  - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
    I don't see that at all, they abandoned Xserve a long time ago.
- gumby 6y ago
  I have long believed the Mac Pro is a marketing tool that they could happily sell at a “loss” — Using quotes because the difference could be considered a marketing expense. Given the price it likely is sold for more than cost; I’m sure the pricing is marketing driven too. It doesn’t just drag the top end of pricing upwards (the classic cheap/middle/extravagant split that drives buyers to the middle) but sends a message. The $1K monitor stand is a good example, In this theory, it’s important to Apple that something be almost always available in the “Mac Pro” zone, but it’s not important enough that they need to be diligent about it. They have this same phenomenon with the super-expensive watches (though I believe the $10K models are gone): basically identical to the cheapest one, and “wear out” (stop getting sw updates, no battery replacements, etc) in the same time too.
  - hazz99 6y ago
    But wasn’t the monitor+stand cheaper than other professional monitors of similar quality? I remember it being cheaper, if not in a similar price range. It seems more that they’re aimed at very different customers and use cases, rather than “extravagance”
runjake 6y ago
I'm pretty sure I heard an Apple talking head saying that an Apple Silicon Mac Pro "in a smaller form factor" will be making its way here in the next couple years.

I predict it will disappear from the market within 2 years with no replacement leaving people to limp along on an iMac. Not like it hasn't happened before.

by qz2 6y ago

I predict it will disappear from the market within 2 years with no replacement leaving people to limp along on an iMac. Not like it hasn't happened before.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

I've been wondering about that. I have a suspicion that the sales volumes don't justify the effort Apple needs to put into a device like that. On the other hand it would be nice to see a slightly more grown up MacMini, something with expansion in mind.

anunes 6y ago
Wouldn't the surplus of selling relatively few machines that cost a minimum of 5,999 US$ justify continuing its development? Not a burn, they're clearly great, well built computers, but Apple obviously adds a lot of profit to all their machines, Mac Pro included.
kemayo 6y ago
I think the Mac Pro exists for reasons independent of directly making a profit. Though Apple would always like to make a profit, of course. It's a combination of a halo car and a triple whopper. A halo car is a statement of intent from a car company. It's showing off "here's all our coolest stuff, and the direction we think things should go", while being impractically expensive and bought by almost nobody. By putting out the fancy new Mac Pro, Apple reassured professionals that it cared about them, and presumably that's making people less likely to nervously shift away from the platform even if all they actually need for their own work is a laptop or Mac Mini. The triple whopper, famously, mostly existed to be a conspicuously more-excessive product that made the double whopper look more reasonable in comparison. If the Mac Pro exists at $6k base, buying a reasonably specced out iMac suddenly looks downright responsible! Both of these things are good for Apple's bottom line.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  Those are interesting points although I'm sure I read that Apple expects each product line to stand on its own two feet.
easton 6y ago
The other side is that if the efficiency and performance of these chips scales up to a big workstation, they could use them in their data centers to get much higher performance without a whole lot of extra power, and then sell whatever chips they don't need as Mac Pros.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  I don't see that at all, they abandoned Xserve a long time ago.
gumby 6y ago
I have long believed the Mac Pro is a marketing tool that they could happily sell at a “loss” — Using quotes because the difference could be considered a marketing expense. Given the price it likely is sold for more than cost; I’m sure the pricing is marketing driven too. It doesn’t just drag the top end of pricing upwards (the classic cheap/middle/extravagant split that drives buyers to the middle) but sends a message. The $1K monitor stand is a good example, In this theory, it’s important to Apple that something be almost always available in the “Mac Pro” zone, but it’s not important enough that they need to be diligent about it. They have this same phenomenon with the super-expensive watches (though I believe the $10K models are gone): basically identical to the cheapest one, and “wear out” (stop getting sw updates, no battery replacements, etc) in the same time too.
- hazz99 6y ago
  But wasn’t the monitor+stand cheaper than other professional monitors of similar quality? I remember it being cheaper, if not in a similar price range. It seems more that they’re aimed at very different customers and use cases, rather than “extravagance”

runjake 6y ago

I'm pretty sure I heard an Apple talking head saying that an Apple Silicon Mac Pro "in a smaller form factor" will be making its way here in the next couple years.