16 ms·

This illustrates the issue I highlighted in another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4097141 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4097141 The fact t

This illustrates the issue I highlighted in another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4097141 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4097141 The fact that Apple keeps hardware and, increasingly, software, so tightly controlled leads to a situation like that of this "new" Mac Pro. If the Apple hardware ecosystem were open like that of Windows you'd have major companies all over the world evolving the platform in wonderful ways. Performance would go up and prices would come down. There are lots of use cases where the user couldn't give a crap about a nice and polished enclosure. You are paying dearly for design you don't need. If you want to pay for design, fine, do so, but to a lot of us it means nothing. Case in point: We have several workstations setup for Finite Element Analysis of heat and fluid flow. They are dual quad core i965 Extremes. They run overclocked at 4.0GHz with memory overclocked to 2.0GHz. They have 64GB of DDR3. All fluid cooled. Tons of storage as well. They also have dual NVidia graphics cards and sport three 24 inch 1920 x 1200 LCD monitors. Total cost, about $3,500. Including the three monitors and the OS hard drive. These are monster machines in terms of performance and they still cost less than a Mac Pro. We have three Mac Pro's as well. I would really like to see Apple open it up. A lot of interesting things could come of it. Because their hardware is not subject to competitive forces, we will now be stuck with a less-than-desirable incremental update for probably three years, if not more.

sillysaurus 14y ago
Which monitors did you buy? How did you get them so cheaply?
- spqr 14y ago
  I have two Hanns G 28" LCD monitors that are 1920x1200 that cost $220 each from a sale on Newegg. I'm guessing you buy Apple products and have no idea how cheap non-Apple hardware can be?
- donio 14y ago
  I don't know what robomartin got but the Dell U2412M which is a decent 24" 1920x1200 IPS panel can be had for $300.
- robomartin 14y ago
  NEC 24WMCX We bought a pile of them way back. Found a deal.
- sciurus 14y ago
  You can get the Dell U2412M for $300. Reviews seem good; e.g. http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1312883832 http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&#3...
  - rdl 14y ago
    I prefer U2410. If you buy in quantity or through the right channels, pricing should be 300-400, 500-600, and 800-1100 for 24/27/30 Dells.
suking 14y ago
Well you said it yourself - if you don't want to pay for a fancy case - don't get a mac...
asdfaoeu 14y ago
I can't see much benefit to Apple though they obviously already make heaps on markup of the current Mac Pro's. Selling OS X standalone I imagine would devalue the rest of OS X products.
alaskamiller 14y ago
The irony of this post is so hilarious to me, this is Apple coming full circle from its clone wars days. Man, those were some shitty experiences. Apple is an hardware company. They make money off the nuts and bolts pieced together with premium markup, software is but icing on top. They practically give away the results of their development costs on OSX. You're encountering the cognitive dissonance as experienced in the 90's. Why, oh, why is Apple not courting customers that don't care about shiny enclosures and slick packaging? Because that's not the Apple way. I'm just waiting for Mac Pros to go the way of Xserves (which the group was ran for years just to break-even for the sake of pretension)
- wh-uws 14y ago
  I agree with all you said except the software being the icing on the top part. Apple knows its the end to end experience (software to hardware). Apple is just fortunate to be in the very small category (if not the singular player) of companies that have great depth of talent in both the hardware and software realms. This and the market they cater too (those with the money to spend) allow them to pick either pushing the hardware or the software forward and make a killing not having to move on the other end. I say this as a person who hasn't bought an Apple product in 10 years in protest of some of their business practices: - draconian App Store developer policies, - 1984- esq lockdown on their platform and employees, - the ridiculous markup on their devices, etc. but who isn't dumb enough to not pay attention to them because they are some of the sharpest folks in the industry.
  - jcromartie 14y ago
    People bring up the "ridiculous markup", but when you compare the MacBook Air vs. the ASUS Zenbook, Apple really is competing on price in the "Ultrabook" market. When the form factor and construction are similar, the Apple version only adds about $150.
- kbuck 14y ago
  I disagree. Apple is both a hardware and software company, and I would argue that most of the decision to buy a Mac lies in software, not hardware. People don't say "I need this computer because it has an aluminum case"; they say "I need a Mac because it's easier to use." Not charging for minor updates doesn't mean they're giving them away. It means they've already rolled the cost into the original sale price.
akeefer 14y ago
Apple is what it is because they tightly control the end-to-end user experience, from the hardware to the software. You can't maintain that and open up the hardware ecosystem; it's an either/or choice. So far, their choice has worked out really, really well for them, so why should they mess with that? I'm sure you're aware of Apple's fairly disastrous entry into the world of Mac clones back in the day. What you're arguing now is essentially the same theory back then: clones would benefit them by increasing the marketshare for their OS. Instead, clones just cannibalized Apple's own sales and diluted their brand with a bunch of crappy knock-offs. I'm not sure why anyone would expect it to play out differently now. Sure, it might be in your interest as a consumer to have choice in hardware, but I don't see how it's in Apple's interest to do so. They seem to be doing pretty well precisely because of the choices they've made to lock things down, not in spite of them.
- achompas 14y ago
  What you're arguing now is essentially the same theory back then: clones would benefit them by increasing the marketshare for their OS. That's not what OP is saying: If the Apple hardware ecosystem were open like that of Windows you'd have major companies all over the world evolving the platform in wonderful ways. Performance would go up and prices would come down. This isn't "moar market share," it's "the end user would benefit greatly if Apple hardware opened up." Today is much different than the Mac clone era for two reasons: (1) Apple clearly has no intention of offering a high-end desktop solution. Instead of losing those users to high-end Windows or Linux machines, they could keep them in the ecosystem by licensing OS X for use in boutique-style desktops. (2) Apple holds much more power now. In the 1990s they licensed Mac OS from a point of weakness; today they could license to high-end, boutique manufacturers who meet their design standards. Is this the right way forward? Maybe, maybe not. But OP's suggestion does not necessarily lead to the Mac clone days of the 90s.
  - roguecoder 14y ago
    That isn't what has happened with Windows machines, though, or Windows itself. It's also the opposite of what has happened with Android: you've ended up with a fractured market full of underpowered phones running obsolete and incompatible versions of the OS. All this Adam Smith idealism is great until we look at the real world, where the barriers to entry, integration costs, barriers to accurate consumer knowledge and platform compatibility hurdles are too high for competition to actually produce ideal outcomes. If people wanted a competitive platform with a propitiatory OS they'd all be developing on Windows. There is no reason for Apple to try to compete in the same space, especially not when they are winning everywhere that matters for consumer electronics.
cageface 14y ago
The crowning irony is that it looks like the digital creative set is going to be pushed into the arms of Microsoft, for so long the subject of their scorn. If you want a fast digital workstation now Windows is your only reasonable option.
- astrodust 14y ago
  Discounting home-made computers, which the big names are not interested in competing with, where you can you source a workstation that's more powerful than the 12-core Mac Pro? The Dell T7600 with 2x2.2GHz 6-core Xeon chips and only 8GB of memory and a 500GB drive comes out at $4,300. The Mac Pro with 2x2.4GHz 6-core, 12GB and a 1TB drive is only $3,800. Unless I'm missing something, the Mac Pro is still a better deal, even for Windows.
  - bane 14y ago
    It's a good point. A quick look on Newegg lets me know I could probably build a much better machine for around $3k even. But systems builders charge much much more for worse hardware. Sidequestion: people still buy hard drives as small as 500GB? 3tb runs around $170.
  - shriphani 14y ago
    ibuypower or one of the other custom rig manufacturers. or buy bare-bones kits on tigerdirect and put it together.
  - reaganing 14y ago
    Except that Dell is now using the newer Sandy Bridge E5 Xeon processors while Apple's using models over 2 years old. One simply can't compare what Apple's now offering with other workstations.
    - cageface 14y ago
      Exactly. Plus, for the kind of people that really need a machine this powerful +/- $1000 isn't decisive. And the cloud of uncertainty hovering over the Mac Pro has got to have a lot of people worried. It's bad enough that you can't get anything resembling a roadmap from Apple but it really looks like the Mac Pro is headed for extinction.
bronxbomber92 14y ago
If you want non-Apple hardware, go buy it. There's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from doing so. I think Apple fills an obviously valuable niche (several niches, really) and I don't see any incentive for them to open up like you suggest. A lot of us do like to pay for design, reliability, and the end-to-end experience, and I'm glad there is a company like Apple to provide for customers like myself.
- bane 14y ago
  "If you want non-Apple hardware, go buy it. There's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from doing so. " Unless I want to use non-Apple hardware with Apple software.
  - bombtrack 14y ago
    I just built a fairly powerful desktop hackintosh and I'm running OSX 10.7.3. The little bit of research that went into ensuring all the parts were compatible was well worth the cash savings.
    - rurounijones 14y ago
      Just to make a slight change: "I just build a fairly powerful desktop hackintosh and I'm running OSX 10.7.3 illegally" Now you might not care about the licensing restrictions on Mac operating systems (I don't) but saying "Oh you can just do this" when it is technically* breaking the law is not an alternative for many people. * Rather up in the air at the moment to be sure, but err on the side of caution
      - bombtrack 14y ago
        You are correct and that is unfortunate. For what it's worth, I purchased a copy of Lion.
        rurounijones 14y ago
        Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the copy was not paid for; just talking about the licensing restrictions.
damoncali 14y ago
Why would apple want to let some else use their software to undercut them on hardware? It makes no sense. Apple's margins a huge for a reason.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
therandomguy 14y ago
You are forgetting the primary question here: What is in it for Apple to cater to users who couldn't give a crap about a nice and polished enclosure? They are happy to play in the premium segment.
- jarek 14y ago
  They don't play in the premium segment for high-end desktops anymore. That's their right but it does bum out users who would like a high-end OS X desktop.
T-Winsnes 14y ago
Even though I agree with your sentiment, you're comparing a desktop/server with a laptop. One is built to be portable, and will have big tradeoffs because of this.
flyinRyan 14y ago
> If the Apple hardware ecosystem were open like that of Windows you'd have major companies all over the world evolving the platform in wonderful ways. And OSX would also be crashing all the time, getting a reputation for being unstable. This is exactly why they have such tightly controlled hardware configurations: so some cheap company with bad drivers can't make Grandmothers think Mac OSX crashes all the time. It's not "free" throwing in support for any stupid (even conflicting!) configuration that people could come up with. You have to write your OS different and you're still not going to stop all the problems. Most of Windows old reputation for being horribly unstable came from a handful of drivers.
- FireBeyond 14y ago
  "Crashing all the time"? This isn't the days of 95, 98, and early XP... Crashing and BSODs are a thing of the past now, unless you buy a non-name peripheral, or have faulty hardware (which will crash an Apple just as quickly).
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    That's pretty much exactly what I was saying. And this is why Apple would be hesitant to open up the hardware configuration.

sillysaurus 14y ago

Which monitors did you buy? How did you get them so cheaply?

spqr 14y ago
I have two Hanns G 28" LCD monitors that are 1920x1200 that cost $220 each from a sale on Newegg. I'm guessing you buy Apple products and have no idea how cheap non-Apple hardware can be?
donio 14y ago
I don't know what robomartin got but the Dell U2412M which is a decent 24" 1920x1200 IPS panel can be had for $300.
robomartin 14y ago
NEC 24WMCX We bought a pile of them way back. Found a deal.
sciurus 14y ago
You can get the Dell U2412M for $300. Reviews seem good; e.g. http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&id=1312883832 http://www.flatpanelshd.com/review.php?subaction=showfull&#3...
- rdl 14y ago
  I prefer U2410. If you buy in quantity or through the right channels, pricing should be 300-400, 500-600, and 800-1100 for 24/27/30 Dells.

suking 14y ago

Well you said it yourself - if you don't want to pay for a fancy case - don't get a mac...

asdfaoeu 14y ago

I can't see much benefit to Apple though they obviously already make heaps on markup of the current Mac Pro's. Selling OS X standalone I imagine would devalue the rest of OS X products.

alaskamiller 14y ago

The irony of this post is so hilarious to me, this is Apple coming full circle from its clone wars days. Man, those were some shitty experiences. Apple is an hardware company. They make money off the nuts and bolts pieced together with premium markup, software is but icing on top. They practically give away the results of their development costs on OSX. You're encountering the cognitive dissonance as experienced in the 90's. Why, oh, why is Apple not courting customers that don't care about shiny enclosures and slick packaging? Because that's not the Apple way. I'm just waiting for Mac Pros to go the way of Xserves (which the group was ran for years just to break-even for the sake of pretension)

wh-uws 14y ago
I agree with all you said except the software being the icing on the top part. Apple knows its the end to end experience (software to hardware). Apple is just fortunate to be in the very small category (if not the singular player) of companies that have great depth of talent in both the hardware and software realms. This and the market they cater too (those with the money to spend) allow them to pick either pushing the hardware or the software forward and make a killing not having to move on the other end. I say this as a person who hasn't bought an Apple product in 10 years in protest of some of their business practices: - draconian App Store developer policies, - 1984- esq lockdown on their platform and employees, - the ridiculous markup on their devices, etc. but who isn't dumb enough to not pay attention to them because they are some of the sharpest folks in the industry.
- jcromartie 14y ago
  People bring up the "ridiculous markup", but when you compare the MacBook Air vs. the ASUS Zenbook, Apple really is competing on price in the "Ultrabook" market. When the form factor and construction are similar, the Apple version only adds about $150.
kbuck 14y ago
I disagree. Apple is both a hardware and software company, and I would argue that most of the decision to buy a Mac lies in software, not hardware. People don't say "I need this computer because it has an aluminum case"; they say "I need a Mac because it's easier to use." Not charging for minor updates doesn't mean they're giving them away. It means they've already rolled the cost into the original sale price.

akeefer 14y ago

Apple is what it is because they tightly control the end-to-end user experience, from the hardware to the software. You can't maintain that and open up the hardware ecosystem; it's an either/or choice. So far, their choice has worked out really, really well for them, so why should they mess with that? I'm sure you're aware of Apple's fairly disastrous entry into the world of Mac clones back in the day. What you're arguing now is essentially the same theory back then: clones would benefit them by increasing the marketshare for their OS. Instead, clones just cannibalized Apple's own sales and diluted their brand with a bunch of crappy knock-offs. I'm not sure why anyone would expect it to play out differently now. Sure, it might be in your interest as a consumer to have choice in hardware, but I don't see how it's in Apple's interest to do so. They seem to be doing pretty well precisely because of the choices they've made to lock things down, not in spite of them.

achompas 14y ago
What you're arguing now is essentially the same theory back then: clones would benefit them by increasing the marketshare for their OS. That's not what OP is saying: If the Apple hardware ecosystem were open like that of Windows you'd have major companies all over the world evolving the platform in wonderful ways. Performance would go up and prices would come down. This isn't "moar market share," it's "the end user would benefit greatly if Apple hardware opened up." Today is much different than the Mac clone era for two reasons: (1) Apple clearly has no intention of offering a high-end desktop solution. Instead of losing those users to high-end Windows or Linux machines, they could keep them in the ecosystem by licensing OS X for use in boutique-style desktops. (2) Apple holds much more power now. In the 1990s they licensed Mac OS from a point of weakness; today they could license to high-end, boutique manufacturers who meet their design standards. Is this the right way forward? Maybe, maybe not. But OP's suggestion does not necessarily lead to the Mac clone days of the 90s.
- roguecoder 14y ago
  That isn't what has happened with Windows machines, though, or Windows itself. It's also the opposite of what has happened with Android: you've ended up with a fractured market full of underpowered phones running obsolete and incompatible versions of the OS. All this Adam Smith idealism is great until we look at the real world, where the barriers to entry, integration costs, barriers to accurate consumer knowledge and platform compatibility hurdles are too high for competition to actually produce ideal outcomes. If people wanted a competitive platform with a propitiatory OS they'd all be developing on Windows. There is no reason for Apple to try to compete in the same space, especially not when they are winning everywhere that matters for consumer electronics.

cageface 14y ago

The crowning irony is that it looks like the digital creative set is going to be pushed into the arms of Microsoft, for so long the subject of their scorn. If you want a fast digital workstation now Windows is your only reasonable option.

astrodust 14y ago
Discounting home-made computers, which the big names are not interested in competing with, where you can you source a workstation that's more powerful than the 12-core Mac Pro? The Dell T7600 with 2x2.2GHz 6-core Xeon chips and only 8GB of memory and a 500GB drive comes out at $4,300. The Mac Pro with 2x2.4GHz 6-core, 12GB and a 1TB drive is only $3,800. Unless I'm missing something, the Mac Pro is still a better deal, even for Windows.
- bane 14y ago
  It's a good point. A quick look on Newegg lets me know I could probably build a much better machine for around $3k even. But systems builders charge much much more for worse hardware. Sidequestion: people still buy hard drives as small as 500GB? 3tb runs around $170.
- shriphani 14y ago
  ibuypower or one of the other custom rig manufacturers. or buy bare-bones kits on tigerdirect and put it together.
- reaganing 14y ago
  Except that Dell is now using the newer Sandy Bridge E5 Xeon processors while Apple's using models over 2 years old. One simply can't compare what Apple's now offering with other workstations.
  - cageface 14y ago
    Exactly. Plus, for the kind of people that really need a machine this powerful +/- $1000 isn't decisive. And the cloud of uncertainty hovering over the Mac Pro has got to have a lot of people worried. It's bad enough that you can't get anything resembling a roadmap from Apple but it really looks like the Mac Pro is headed for extinction.

bronxbomber92 14y ago

If you want non-Apple hardware, go buy it. There's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from doing so. I think Apple fills an obviously valuable niche (several niches, really) and I don't see any incentive for them to open up like you suggest. A lot of us do like to pay for design, reliability, and the end-to-end experience, and I'm glad there is a company like Apple to provide for customers like myself.

bane 14y ago
"If you want non-Apple hardware, go buy it. There's nothing stopping you (or anyone else) from doing so. " Unless I want to use non-Apple hardware with Apple software.
- bombtrack 14y ago
  I just built a fairly powerful desktop hackintosh and I'm running OSX 10.7.3. The little bit of research that went into ensuring all the parts were compatible was well worth the cash savings.
  - rurounijones 14y ago
    Just to make a slight change: "I just build a fairly powerful desktop hackintosh and I'm running OSX 10.7.3 illegally" Now you might not care about the licensing restrictions on Mac operating systems (I don't) but saying "Oh you can just do this" when it is technically* breaking the law is not an alternative for many people. * Rather up in the air at the moment to be sure, but err on the side of caution
    - bombtrack 14y ago
      You are correct and that is unfortunate. For what it's worth, I purchased a copy of Lion.
      - rurounijones 14y ago
        Sorry, I did not mean to imply that the copy was not paid for; just talking about the licensing restrictions.

damoncali 14y ago

Why would apple want to let some else use their software to undercut them on hardware? It makes no sense. Apple's margins a huge for a reason.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

therandomguy 14y ago

You are forgetting the primary question here: What is in it for Apple to cater to users who couldn't give a crap about a nice and polished enclosure? They are happy to play in the premium segment.

jarek 14y ago
They don't play in the premium segment for high-end desktops anymore. That's their right but it does bum out users who would like a high-end OS X desktop.

T-Winsnes 14y ago

Even though I agree with your sentiment, you're comparing a desktop/server with a laptop. One is built to be portable, and will have big tradeoffs because of this.

flyinRyan 14y ago

> If the Apple hardware ecosystem were open like that of Windows you'd have major companies all over the world evolving the platform in wonderful ways. And OSX would also be crashing all the time, getting a reputation for being unstable. This is exactly why they have such tightly controlled hardware configurations: so some cheap company with bad drivers can't make Grandmothers think Mac OSX crashes all the time. It's not "free" throwing in support for any stupid (even conflicting!) configuration that people could come up with. You have to write your OS different and you're still not going to stop all the problems. Most of Windows old reputation for being horribly unstable came from a handful of drivers.

FireBeyond 14y ago
"Crashing all the time"? This isn't the days of 95, 98, and early XP... Crashing and BSODs are a thing of the past now, unless you buy a non-name peripheral, or have faulty hardware (which will crash an Apple just as quickly).
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  That's pretty much exactly what I was saying. And this is why Apple would be hesitant to open up the hardware configuration.